Global Temperature Report: March 2012
- U.S. hits record highs in March,
- Iowa is ‘warmest’ place on Earth
- Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
March temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C (about 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Tropics: -0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30- year average for March.
February temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: -0.11 C below 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: -0.01 C below 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: -0.21 C below 30-year average
Tropics: -0.28 C below 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average
(1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released April 3, 2012:
Compared to seasonal norms, March 2012 was the warmest month on record in the 48 contiguous U.S. states, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.82 C (almost 5.1° Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in March.
The previous U.S. record warm anomaly in the 33-year satellite temperature record was in November 1999, when temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.22 C (about 4° F)
warmer than the seasonal norm for November. The next warmest March was in 2007, when temperatures over the U.S. were 2.0 C (about 3.2° F) warmer than normal.
While the long-term climate trend over the U.S. has seen warming at the rate of about 0.21 C (almost 0.38° F) per decade during the past one third of a century, March’s temperature anomaly is just that: an anomaly, Christy said. “We see hot and cold spots over the globe every month, and this was just our turn. A one-time anomaly like this is related to weather rather than climate. Weather systems aligned in March in a way that changed normal circulation patterns and brought more warm air than usual to the continental U.S.”
In fact, the warmest spot on the globe in March (compared to seasonal norms) was northeastern Iowa, where temperatures for the month averaged 6.20 C (about 11.2°
F) warmer than normal. By comparison, the winter (DJF) of 2011-2012 averaged
0.94 C (about 1.7° F) warmer than seasonal norms for the continental U.S.
In recent years March has not typically seen temperature extremes over the U.S. The March 2011 temperature for the “lower 48” was at the seasonal norm. The coolest spot on Earth in March 2012 was northwestern Alaska, where temperatures averaged 3.89 C (7.0° F) colder than normal.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
The processed temperature data is available on-line at: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center
(ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly
temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Kevin Cave says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:43 am
Very deep low pressure system gave very stormy weather over Japan last night.
High winds and snow today. Cherry blossom is late here this year as well.
Could someone please pass some of that heat over to Japan?
Please?!
_________________________________________________
It is a nice sunny 70F (21C) here in North Carolina. You want I should ship you some?
Please disregard my comment at 7:19 am. The casino is located in the northwest corner of Iowa.
But then again, maybe there is a cause and effect going on.
Like in Dallas yesterday.
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:12 am
“I’m not ure what other posters are lookinga at but the graph above clearly shows a continuing warming trend. “
Looking at the UAH GL temperature data, there are a lot up and downs with different frequencies. Each ‘up’ in temperature is caused by an increased heat source and vice versa. Heat is not coming out od nothing.
There is no term “trend” in sciences, because it has no dimension.
“Fluctuations in the graph are the result of ENSO events, i.e. La Nina (cooling) and El Nino (warming). “
No. ENSO is not an observable in physics, and important – ENSO has no heat source (to show). ENSO is an unexplained frequency phenomenon, where the frequency is not really related to a geometry, but is has harmonic relations to the QBO and to the chandler wobble (1 : 2 : 4) .
V.
We’ve been in that lovely red bull’s eye for all of March, the warmest March in well over a hundred years of record keeping, +9C over average, and it has been great. The whole winter has been well above average in southern Manitoba.
With all of that though there is still ice on all of the large lakes. Not ice that you would want to venture on to though, one poor soul drowned last weekend when his ATV went through while doing some late season ice fishing farther north.
izen says:
That is probably because it would be inaccurate. Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2011/trend
1996 to 2011? That isnt the last 15 years. Those are some plump cherries, though. Cute trick plotting only the trend line. Including the data in the plot would have shown people that you started your run in the trough before the 98 super nino, and ended it a year before the present – conveniently wiping a very cool year (2011) from the record. When people like you tell lies like that, it doesn’t do your cause any favors.
But its not a question of a prefered belief, its a matter of objective data.
In this case, it is a matter of very subjective fiddling with the data on your part, driven by your preferred belief.
Try returning to the OP’s actual assertion – flat for the last 15 years. That is what you claimed to be addressing. The most recent data in the WFT dataset is from January 2012. Counting back 15 years from that point brings us to January 1997. That is the 15 year period you should have looked at. And you undoubtedly did, but that didn’t show what you wanted it to. So you moved the endpoints until you got the story you wanted to tell instead.
The current 15 year trend in the WFT dataset is 0.03 C per decade, and that tiny little thing is not statistically significant. Nor is it practically significant, being but 1/10 of the mid range IPCC predicted warming. Of course, that lack of significance is quite significant.
David L. Hagen says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:08 am
Scientifically, a linear trend (2 parameters) is the simplist model after no change and easiest to compare against the IPCC’s models.
2 parameter are elements of a math function. Without linking this math function to physical observables it is not science. And a comparison of math functions is not science, too.
“Compare Scafetta’s natural multicycle model with anthropogenic contribution.”
Scafetta’s model is based on pasting few FFT single frequencies of sinusoid shape out of well known temperature proxies.
Natural means all and nothing.
“To compare how differing models fit it would help to have both and understanding of the physics behind the models and as full uncertainty information as available for readers to evaluate – especially bias uncertainties where possible. “
To understand the physics of climate it is first necessary to understand the geometry behind the temperature frequencies in detail. A lot of geometry/frequency functions can be found from astronomical (solar tide) functions and fits well with the observed global temperature spectra.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_rghi11.gif
This geometry leads to the – unknown – physical mechanism behind, to recognize.
V.
To put 2012 into perspective, the three anomalies so far are -0.090, -0.112 and +0.108. This gives an average of -0.031. Naturally things will change before the end of the year, but at this point, 2012 would rank 18th warmest on the UAH data set. 2011 was 9th warmest with an average anomaly of 0.153.
Mark R writes, re NZ temperatures :
> temperatures were experienced (within 0.5°C of average). The nation-wide
> average temperature in March was 14.6°C (1.2°C below the 1971–2000 March
> average), using NIWA’s seven-station temperature series which begins in 1909.
As I have pointed out before, the four stations in the South Island are
(near-)coastal … no conclusions whatever can be drawn about trends in
the 95% of the island that make up the remainder. The claim by NIWA
that the “seven station series” is “representative of New Zealand” is risible.
John Finn says:
I’m not ure what other posters are lookinga at but the graph above clearly shows a continuing warming trend.
It most certainly does not.
But if you compare these anomalies with those during other La Nina periods such as in the mid-1980s …
Then you are not looking at a continuing warming trend. You are confusing warm with warming.
While ENSO muddies the waters a bit, there is undoubtedly a significant underlying warming trend.
No, there is not. This isn’t a matter for eyeballing and making shit up. Trends can be calculated. From UAH data, the trend for the last 15 years is effectively flat. There is no continuing warming.
izen says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:50 am
Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
I do not agreee about HadCRUT3. I realize you did not mention the sea surface and RSS, but they also show no warming over 15 years.
Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is at least slightly negative (or flat for all practical purposes). NOTE: * There are no February values yet for 2, 5 and 6. Once these are in, I expect AT LEAST one month to be added to each of the times below.
1. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 3 months
2. HadCrut3: since March 1997 or 14 years, 11 months*
3. GISS: since May 2001 or 10 years, 10 months
4. UAH: It never quite reaches a negative value but I expect it to with the March numbers.
5. Combination of the above 4: December 2000 or 11 years, 2 months*
6. Sea surface temperatures: February 1997 or 15 years, 0 months*
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.91/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.08/trend
P.S. From another source, I know the HadCRUT3 value for February will be about 0.19, which is a further drop from the January value of 0.218, and with that being the case, the sea surface value cannot be too different from a slight drop in its January value. I do not know why the February values are not up yet by April 4. Could Dr. Nicola Scafetta be blamed since he will just use these numbers to find something wrong with the IPCC?
izen says: “While the data may not suggest a linear trend, the overall rise in temperature requires an addition of extra energy to the climate system.
The only known source of additional energy does follow a linear trend.”
The only known source if you ignore all the others!
Differences in solar effects, cloud regimes, ocean current cycles, air exchange cycles all add up to a pretty resounding refutation of your argument from ignorance.
“The trend line is 0.13 c per decade ” this is just a meaningless statistic ,not science, the anomoly is only 0.36 higher than it was 33 years ago(less than 1.00 c per centuary) in 2008 it was colder than it was in 1979.The Earths climate is dynamic and changing and trend lines only model where temperatures will be if nothing changes.Our belief systems lead us to conclude that the global temperature will go up or in the skeptics view down but nothing in this data proves anything about the way future global temperatures will evolve,that is my opinion.
Praise the Lord. Warmth is good. Looking at the low pass filtered UAH curve, an uptick during a down ward portion of the cycle is indeed a good thing. We’ll take whatever little warm spikes we can get, carpe diem.
izen says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:50 am
@- JohnH says: April 4, 2012 at 1:20 am
“Just highlights a difference, WUWT can give a headline saying the Global temps are up, never seen Realclimate having a headline of say 15 Years of no Temp increase.”
That is probably because it would be inaccurate. Whatever temperature metric you use, GISS, UAH, HADCRU, BEST, there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
A linear fit of the UHA GL temperature data – changed by 1000 mK – in temperature in thelast decade of years results in Delta T = +26.5559 [mK] . Knowing that the accuracy of thermometers measuring temperatures of 300000 mK cannot be exact, it is not correct to speak on significance, what ever that means. We do not speak here about statistics; we speak about accuracy and precision. It’s possible that a precision is better than an accuracy because of a calibration process, but these data cannot compared, because there is no accurate temperature reference available.
The very point here is that the physical heat cause of the 600 – 1000 mK oscillations in the global temperature spectra are ignored by claims of increasing temperatures of ~27 mK for the last decade, claimed as ‘statistically significant’.
Science is to respect the whole; science need no personal claims of parts.
V.
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:12 am
It’s clear that each La Nina period is warmer than the previous one.
This is true for UAH, but with RSS, you have to go back to 1993 to find a La Nina that is much lower than the present one. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1993
The drop in Hadcru3 since 1998 correlates nicely with the decrease in the rate of sea level rise as plotted in the Climate For You website. Click on ‘sea level rise change’.
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
Sea Level Rise magnifies the effect of global warming since it is the sum of melting land ice and thermal expansion due to ocean heat gain. The IPCC has predicted acceleration of sea level rise. This is a spectacular fail in my opinion.
@-izen says: April 4, 2012 at 3:50 am
Whatever temperature metric you use…there is definately a statistically significant temperature increase over the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend
Izen,
For all four land+sea trends for the last 15 years, two are down two are up. Check it out.
My solar based long range forecast gave a strong warming blast from the second week in March.
Would be curious on what percentage of the area mapped is average, above, and below average.
izen says: “The only known source of additional energy does follow a linear trend.”
If you’re talking CO2, it does not follow a linear trend…it’s logarithmic…each doubling of CO2 increases temperature by X degrees. And saying it’s additional energy is not exactly true either. Saying CO2 is a source of energy would be like saying a capacitor is a source of energy, when it actually just stores energy from another source.
Over the period 1997-2011 CO2 forcing would be ~0.4 w/m2. Even using the IPCC’s quoted sensitivity 3 deg per CO2 doubling we would still only expect an increase of ~0.3 deg. Now, note from the above graph that transition from El Nino to La Nina (e.g 2010-2011) is of the order of 0.5 deg then it’s easy to see how short term fluctuations can mask warming over relatively short periods.
It doesn’t ‘mask’ the warming. ENSO causes more and faster cooling than the IPCC claimed warming effect of CO2.
This is the serious flaw in the CO2 forcing theory. The Earth’s climate can lose heat at a much faster rate than CO2 can warm the climate (based on the IPCC’s claim).
Which is why there is the ‘missing heat’ debate.
JJ says:
April 4, 2012 at 9:08 am
It most certainly does not.
Then you are not looking at a continuing warming trend. You are confusing warm with warming.
No, there is not. This isn’t a matter for eyeballing and making shit up. Trends can be calculated. From UAH data, the trend for the last 15 years is effectively flat. There is no continuing warming.
Addressing the points in your final paragraph
1. Despite what you say there is a significant underlying warming trend. It’s 0.13 deg per decade acccording to Roy Spencer and John Christy.
2. I know trends can be calculated. Spencer & Christy calculated the trend for the complete dataset since 1979.
3. The UAH trend for the last 15 years is not “essentially flat” – it’s ~0.1 deg per decade (I too can calculate trends). This is not signifcantly different from the overall trend so we can’t even say that there is a reduced trend over your cherry-picked last 15 years. This is despite the fact that we’ve had back to back La Ninas during the last 18 months of the 15 year period.
Philip Bradley says:
April 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm
It doesn’t ‘mask’ the warming. ENSO causes more and faster cooling than the IPCC claimed warming effect of CO2.
It masks the the warming as far as temperature readings are concerned. It doesn’t change the earth’s energy balance. ENSO clearly doesn’t cool faster than whatever is causing the earth warm otherwise the earth would be much cooler now than it was 20 years ago.
John Finn says:
“…there is a significant underlying warming trend. It’s 0.13 deg per decade…”
Yes. The [natural] global warming trend goes all the way back to the LIA. That trend began when CO2 was ≈280 ppmv, and has continued along the same trend line. Now CO2 is ≈392 ppm, and the long term trend is still within its long term parameters. It is you who cherry-picks short term fluctuations.
The fact that the planet is still emerging from one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene does not seem to be measurably influenced by CO2. But once a true believer in demon CO2, always a true believer. Isn’t that right?
Werner Brozek says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:14 am
John Finn says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:12 am
It’s clear that each La Nina period is warmer than the previous one.
This is true for UAH, but with RSS, you have to go back to 1993 to find a La Nina that is much lower than the present one.
Actually I thought we were discussing UAH. The title of the post is “UAH Global Temperature anomaly up in March at 0.11°C”. Also I thought UAH was the only trusted dataset. I’m a bit surprised by the number of ‘sceptics’ who now use HadCrut or RSS to demonstrate various points.